SEARCH ALPHABETICALLY

FILTER BY

Featured Industries

From artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, and cryptocurrency, the rapid evolution of technology shows no sign of slowing down. Companies in the digital technology sector are among the world’s most highly valued companies, with good reason. And businesses in every sector now use digital technology in all kinds of ways, from basic email to sophisticated data analytics.

Featured Industries

Fresh water is becoming a scarce resource in the United States and across the globe as demand continues to rise due to population and business growth. This emergent scarcity means businesses will face more consequences of the complex regulatory and legal frameworks governing water use and water quality.

Michael Best’s Water team understands those issues. We guide clients through the heavily regulated, politically sensitive environment surrounding the management of, investment in, and development of water resources.

Featured Practice

Environmental & Natural Resources law is not only complex and constantly evolving, but also highly technical. Michael Best’s team of environmental lawyers understands not only the law and the science of environmental regulations, but also our clients’ business needs and how to help achieve them.

Publication

June 24, 2009Client Alert

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Burdens of Proof in Age Discrimination Claims

In a 5-4 decision just issued, the U.S. Supreme Court made defending age discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) easier for employers. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., the Court held that in order for a plaintiff to prevail in an intentional ADEA age discrimination claim, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the “but for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the application of the “mixed motives” framework, found in Title VII cases, to ADEA cases. Now, even if a plaintiff puts forth evidence that age was a factor in the adverse employment decision, the plaintiff cannot prevail unless he or she proves that the plaintiff’s age was the reason the employer took the adverse action. Further, the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to prove all disparate treatment claims and the employer does not have to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age.

As support for its decision, the Court noted that the mixed motive framework derived first from Title VII cases, and then from Title VII itself. The Court recognized that Congress amended Title VII to authorize discrimination claims in which an improper consideration was “a motivating factor” for an adverse employment decision. However, Congress did not include the “motivating factor” language in the ADEA when it was amended, and the Court could not ignore Congress’ decision to change one law and not the other.

The Court then examined the language of the ADEA and held that its text also did not authorize an alleged mixed-motives age discrimination claim. The ADEA provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” See 29 U.S.C. §623(a)(1). According to the Court, the ordinary meaning of the ADEA’s requirement that an employer took adverse action “because of” age is that age was the “reason” that the employer decided to act. In other words, age must be the “but for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action and not simply a motivating factor.

While it appears that the Court made it easier for employers to defend against ADEA age claims, one must be careful not to overlook state and local age discrimination laws which may still allow for a mixed motive jury instruction when it comes to employment litigation. As always, an employer’s best defense is to document the reason for adverse employment action, particularly noting performance problems and disciplinary action taken against specific employees. Such information will make it very difficult for a claimant to prove that age was the sole reason for adverse employment action.

As a full-service law firm, Michael Best provides the significant depth and breadth of knowledge needed to address complex labor and employment challenges. Our attorneys, whose legal backgrounds and experience are as diverse as the companies we represent, fully understand how positive labor and employment relations contribute to our clients' success. The attorneys in this group work closely with their partners across other practice groups to provide a full range of proactive and comprehensive legal services.

Related People

Eric advises clients in all areas of labor and employment law. With a practice that is national in scope, he is particularly active in litigating matters involving trade secrets, non-competition agreements and related disputes. Eric has a nationally recognized practice in the area of contingent labor and regularly prepares and reviews policies, procedures and contracts and litigates contested matters for users and providers of temporary employees, consultants, independent contractors and other contingent talent.

Kirk’s practice focuses on legal issues related to all aspects of the employment cycle, from hiring through termination and severance. Substantially experienced in both benefits and employment law, Kirk is well positioned to help clients respond to the opportunities, vulnerabilities and benefit ramifications of particular employment decisions. Kirk’s focus includes developing and maintaining effective compliance strategies related to defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, executive compensation and more.

Any information you convey to Michael Best & Friedrich LLP via the internet may not be secure, and any information conveyed prior to establishing an attorney-client relationship may not be privileged or confidential. The establishment of an attorney-client relationship requires prior satisfaction of multiple factors, including resolution of conflicts and mutual agreement on the terms of the engagement. Before speaking with a Michael Best attorney, please do not convey any more information than is reasonably necessary to describe generally the matter, and to identify the adverse parties. Please do not convey any information you deem as confidential. Please click the “Accept” button below to confirm that you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed in sending a message.